DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions.
Status
Claims 2, 16, 19, and 21-24 as filed on 13 January 2025 are examined herein.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Examiner’s Notes & Claim Interpretation
Citations to Applicant’s specification are abbreviated herein “Spec.” Occasionally, “SIN” is used as an abbreviation “SEQ ID NO” herein.
SEQ ID NO:678 is 708 nucleotides in length. When translated in the first open reading frame, it produces a polypeptide
MAPRAATVEKVAVAPPTGLGLGVGGGVGAGGPHYRGVRKRPWGRYAAEIRDPAKKSRVWL
GTYDTAEEAARAYDAAAREFRGAKAKTNFPFASQSMVGCGGSPSSNSTVDTGGGGVQTPM
RAMPLPPTLDLDLFHRAAAVTAVAGTGVRFPFRGYPVARPATHPYFFYEQAAAAAAAEAG
YRMMKLAPPVTVAAVAQSDSDSSSVVDLAPSPPAVTANKAAAFDLDLNRPPPVEN*
When searched using NCBI’s BLAST® website, it is almost sequence- identical to “BTH-induced ERF transcriptional factor 2 [Oryza sativa Indica Group]” Cao et al. (2006) GenBank: AAV98701.1. The associated publication is Cao et al. (2006) J Plant Physiol 163:1167-78.
SEQ ID NO:678 is in the sequence listing for the priority provisional application. Thus the Cao et al. publications are not prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 22 is objected to because it recites approximately fifteen different species without italicizing any of the names.
Claim 24 is objected to because it recites the indefinite pronoun “a” to refer to the transgenic plant from claim 23 rather than “the” or “said” transgenic plant.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 is rejected because it recites approximately fifteen species of plants with no italics (see objection supra) with, frequently, an exemplary common name of the species in parentheses. For example, in line 5, the claim recites the limitation “Oryza sativa [sic] (rice).”
Oryza sativa, however, is the name of one species of rice, but other species of rice exist. See e.g. Londo et al. (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(25):9578-83. Similarly, lines 3-4 recites the limitation “Saccharum [sic] sp. (energycane).” Energycane is just one species of Saccharum. See e.g. Mendonça Vilela et al. (2017) Genome Biol Evol 9(2):266-78.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), written description
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit held that a written description of an invention "’requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The court also stated "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of is not a description of that material." Id., 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The court held that “[a] description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.” Id., 119 F. 3d at 1569, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Claim 2, the first independent claim, is drawn to a method of producing a plant with an exogenous nucleic acid that comprises a sequence at least 85% identical to SEQ ID NO:678 or a complement thereof (or SEQ ID NO:28) starting from a plant cell.
The claim also requires a change in biomass in a plant produced from the cell. Dependent claim 16 requires SEQ ID NO:678 or a sequence at least 90 percent identical thereto.
Claim 19 is an independent claim drawn to a plant cell comprising the same genera of biomolecules with the same functional requirement as claim 2.
Dependent claim 21 is drawn to a transgenic plant. Dependent claim 22 recites various varieties of plants.
Dependent claim 23 depends from claim 21 and restricts the claimed genus of variants to 90% sequence-identical.
Dependent claim 24 is drawn to a seed product from “a” transgenic plant of claim 23; there is no requirement for a sequence related to either SEQ ID NO:678 or SEQ ID NO:28. But it does require “tissue” and its reasonable to interpret this a having a molecule with either SEQ ID NO:678 or SEQ ID NO:28 as an exogenous nucleic acid molecule (or segment thereof).
SEQ ID NO:678, for example, is 708 nucleotides in length. If the first approximately 85% were held constant, and the remaining 105 (approximately 15%) were varied, this would result in 1054 different variants. However, that is only a small fraction of the number claimed, because different regions could be held constant.
Applicant fails to describe a representative number of species for the claimed genus – Applicant only describes SEQ ID NO:678.
Applicant does not describe results for SEQ ID NO:28
Applicant’s sequence listing identifies SEQ ID NO:678 as “Os01g58420” suggesting that it was identified in O. sativa.
On page 86, the specification describes the claimed invention in Example 5. Results for transgenic expression of the antisense construct referenced as RNAi that is SEQ ID NO:678 produced rice that is:
(1) taller;
(2) has an almost doubled biomass;
(3) and has decreased panicle weight, in spite of the increase in biomass.
This suggests thicker stems in the rice plant.
In paragraph 0069 the specification teaches that Os01g58420 is SEQ ID NO:1 while SEQ ID NO:678 is the antisense. Figure 4 presents an alignment which has SEQ ID NO:1.
This appears to be the only example in the specification using antisense or RNAi to inhibit expression. Thus although Figure 4 represents similar polypeptide sequences, the figure does not describe RNAi sequences related to SEQ ID NO:678. There is also no description of the phenotypes of suppressing expression of the other proteins in Figure 4.
Applicant only describes the transgenic suppression of one of the gene and one SEQ ID NO. There are many methods for gene suppression using RNA, including antisense RNA and RNAi - see, for example, Troukhan & Mascia, US Patent Publication No. 2009/0094717 A1, published 9 April 2009, paras 0087-90.
Additionally, as seen above, SEQ ID NO:678, in the first reverse reading frame, encodes a protein. Since DNA exists as a duplex in a plant cell, the orientation of the promoter is critical. Also, the claims explicitly recite the complement.
Furthermore, just in the abstract of Hilty et al. describes the complexities of measuring and/or assessing plant growth, in other words an undefined change in biomass. This is described by Hilty et al. as involving regulating growth and/or development. Hilty et al. Hilty et al. (2021) New Phytol 232:25-41.
Post-filing art suggests complexity in the use of antisense.
Miki et al. describes/ teaches/ that, by targeting a construct designed to provoke inverted-repeat RNA silencing to a sequence specific to a single gene, i.e., the 3Ꞌ UTR of a mRNA, specific suppression of a single gene’s transcript was accomplished. (p. 1906) However, then the RNA construct was designed against conserved sequences, suppression of an entire gene family occurred (p. 1907). Miki et al. (2005) Plant Phys 138:1903-13.
See also, Xu et al. (2006) Plant Physiol 142:429-40 (title: Computational Estimation and Experimental Verification of Off-Target Silencing during Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing in Plants.”)
Since the claim doesn’t commit to antisense, and sequence variants of SEQ ID NO:678’s complement encoding the polypeptide falling within the scope of the claims include minor variants, in terms of percentage change, which would include premature stop codons and frame shift mutants in the reading frame. Thus, by claiming sequence variants of SEQ ID NO:678’s complement, Applicant is also claiming fragments of SEQ ID NO:1, i.e., the protein encoded in the complement as well as frame-shifts and also includes polypeptide variants that might have very little sequence similarity to SEQ ID NO:1.
SEQ ID NO:678 is known in the prior art. As seen in the alignment infra in the rejection under 35 USC 103. La Rosa et al. teaches instant SEQ ID NO:678 as its SEQ ID NO:11104. La Rosa et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. "2010/0269214 A2, claiming priority to provisional application no. 60/132,860, filed on 7 May 1999.
As discussed supra, Applicant provides results for SEQ ID NO:678 in an antisense version, but not variants thereof.
Therefore one skilled in the art would not be able to envision even the claimed genus of polynucleotide that are up to 15% sequence-variant from the claimed SEQ ID NO:678 that are also active in the instant invention.
Applicant fails to describe a representative number of species that are active in the invention. Although Applicant provides Figure 3, the other proteins are not shown to be active when transgenically expressed.
As discussed above, In the event that a sufficient number of species are not described, however, the Federal Circuit provides a second prong to satisfy the written description requirement. The court held that the written description requirement may be also satisfied by or by structural features that are necessary and/or sufficient for activity for members of the claimed genus. Regents U.C.. v. Lilly, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The court held that “[a] description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.” Id.
Applicant however also fails to describe structural features common to active members of the claimed genus of transgenic biomass-changing polynucleotides that share the required level sequence identity with SEQ ID NO:678. Applicant fails to provide any structure / function analysis of either the polynucleotide or of the protein encoded by the complement when expressed transgenically.
Hence, as shown above, Applicant fails to describe a representative number of species of sequences related to SEQ ID NO:678 that change biomass in a transgenic plant. Applicant also fails describe the structural elements of a SEQ ID NO:678-related polynucleotide that are necessary and/or sufficient for the phenotype of changing the biomass of a plant when expressed transgenically.
Applicant’s claims also read on any change in biomass, including, for example, killing the plant.
Hence Applicant fails to satisfy the written description requirement because Applicant fails to describe a representative number of species of sequences related to SEQ ID NO:678 and Applicant also fails describe the structural elements of this polypeptide that are necessary and/or sufficient for activity in the instant invention. Therefore Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the art possession of the broad genus of claimed polypeptides. Since the specification fails to provide an adequate written description to support the breadth of the claims, one of skill in the art would not believe Applicant to be in possession of the invention as broadly as claimed at the time of filing.
Dependent claims are included in this rejection because none provide further limitations obviating this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), enablement
Claims 2, 16, 19, 21-23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for increasing the biomass of a plant when SEQ ID NO:678 is expressed transgenically as an antisense agent, does not enable the invention as broadly as claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The Federal Circuit in In re Wands lists eight considerations for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be necessary to practice an invention. In re Wands, 858 F2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors are: the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples of the invention, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims. Id.
Biotechnology is generally held to be an unpredictable art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The scope of the claims is set forth supra In the rejection under the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a) and is incorporated by reference here.
In contrast to the claim scope, Applicant teaches only the transgenic expression of SEQ ID NO:678 as an antisense agent suppressing expression of the polypeptide represented by SEQ ID NO:1 (p. 86).
The specification teaches the claimed invention in Example 5 as increasing biomass. Example 5 also teaches reducing panicle weight, but that value of that is uncertain.
SEQ ID NO:678 sets forth an antisense sequence to the gene encoding the amino acid sequence that is SEQ ID NO:1.
Table 5 teaches that the transgenic expression of SEQ ID NO:678 increases biomass but decreases panicle weight. Id., p. 86.
Figure 4 teaches other polypeptide sequences with some similarity to SEQ ID NO:1.
Transgenic suppression results, however, are not provided for other proteins of Figure 4.
Since the orientation of SEQ ID NO:678 is not specified in the claims, but the presence of tis complement is affirmed, the claims also read on transgenic expression of SEQ ID NO:1 as well as variants thereof.
No results are taught for SEQ ID NO:28.
The art, however, teaches that amino acid changes can alter or eliminate a polypeptide's activity. Furthermore, mutagenesis to make nucleic acid molecule variants and hence, polypeptide variants, as broadly as claimed is unpredictable. Guo et al. teaches that while proteins are fairly tolerant to mutations resulting in single amino acid changes, increasing the number of substitutions additively increases the probability that the protein will be inactivated. Guo et al. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 9205-10, 9209, right col., para. 2.
Additionally, even when considered as an antisense agent, the activity of variants is uncertain. See, for example, the discussion above in the written description rejection.
Therefore to fully enable the claimed invention, extensive guidance would be required. Such guidance is not provided.
One of skill in the art, after reading the specification, would be uncertain as to both how to make and how to use the instant invention as broadly as claimed. One of skill in the art would find it difficult to predict which of the claimed sequence variants could be used in the instant invention, and which could not. Although testing individual nucleic acid molecules and/or polypeptides may be routine, Applicant has provided no guidance as to how to proceed.
Especially considering the scope of the claims which include increasing AND decreasing biomass
Thus neither Applicant nor the art provide any guidance regarding changes to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 where such changes relate to the protein’s ability to increase or decrease biomass when transgenically expressed.
Thus whether the claimed sequence variants will function in the instant invention is unpredictable. Thus neither Applicant nor the art provide the extensive guidance required to practice the full scope of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Given the claim breadth regarding variant sequences, combined with the unpredictability in the art, and lack of guidance as discussed above, undue experimentation is required to practice Applicant’s invention. Therefore one skilled in the art would be forced to make and test numerous nucleic acids encoding polypeptides related to the ones used in the instant working example with no guidance as to which ones could be used in the instant invention. Thus Applicant’s claimed invention would require undue trial and error experimentation with no reasonable expectation of success.
Further, see the additional complexities regarding increasing and/or decreasing biomass in theabstract of Hilty et al. Hilty et al. (2021) New Phytol 232:25-41.
Therefore the specification does not enable the broad scope of the claims.
35 USC § 103-based Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
§ 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, . . . . if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Rosa et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. "2010/0269214 A2, claiming priority to provisional application no. 60/132,860, filed on 7 May 1999.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
As seen in the alignment below, La Rosa et al. teaches instant SEQ ID NO:678 as its SEQ ID NO:11104
La Rosa et al.’s first claim is drawn to a nucleic acid molecule drawn from Markush groups where the groups include SEQ ID NO:11104.
In paragraph 0019 La Rosa et al. teaches using its nucleic acid molecules in an antisense orientation. See also paragraph 0030 (and 0070-72). Paragraph 0031 teaches rice. Paragraph 0050 teaches regenerating plants. In paragraph 0066, La Rosa et al. teaches an objective of improving plant yield. In paragraph 0069 La Rosa et al. teaches plants with “greater stature or thicker stalks” which would result in a change in biomass.
The instant claims are silent as to the direction of the change in biomass. In fact, the specification teaches an increase in biomass and a decrease in panicle weight (p. 86).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants' invention to follow the teachings of La Rosa et al. to express SEQ ID NO:678, or its antisense transcript, in a transgenic plant. Given the level of skill in the art at the time of Applicants' invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2 only reads on growing a plant from a plant cell with an exogenous nucleic acid molecule with the sequence of SEQ ID NO:678 or its complement. The claim forecasts that such a plant will have changed biomass. Thus claim 2 is obvious. Claim 16 is also obvious because it only reduces the size of the claimed genus of variants.
Claim 19 is also obvious because it reads on such a plant cell. Claims 21 and 22 read on plants and include rice and thus are also obvious.
Claim 23 is also obvious because it reduces the size of the claimed genus of variants. Claim 24 reads on, in one embodiment, a seed, and thus is obvious.
La Rosa et al. does not single out its copy of instant SEQ ID NO:678 / its SEQ ID NO: 11104 in the claims, but each embodiment in the sequence listing has its unique sequence and its unique SEQ ID NO. Hence, La Rosa et al. does not teach the association of transgenic expression of instant SEQ ID NO:678 / its SEQ ID NO: 11104 with a change in biomass. On the other hand the claims only require a change – neither an increase nor a decrease.
La Rosa et al. does single out transcription factors (para. 0004) and subsequent work demonstrated SEQ ID NO:678 with a coding sequence for a transcription factor (see Claim Interpretation section supra).
US-10-438-246-11104/c
(NOTE: this sequence has 4 duplicates in the database searched.
See complete list at the end of this report)
Sequence 11104, US/10438246
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: La Rosa, Thomas J.
APPLICANT: Lutfiyya, Linda L.
APPLICANT: Zhou, Yihua
APPLICANT: Kovalic, David K.
APPLICANT: Barbazuk, Brad
APPLICANT: Li, Ping
APPLICANT: Wu, Wei
APPLICANT: Boukharov, Andrey A.
TITLE OF INVENTION: Nucleic Acid Molecules and Other Molecules Associated with
TITLE OF INVENTION: Transcription in Plants and Uses Thereof for Plant Improvement
FILE REFERENCE: 38-21(53333)B
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/10/438,246
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2003-05-14
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 33516
SEQ ID NO 11104
LENGTH: 708
TYPE: DNA
ORGANISM: Oryza sativa
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: Clone ID: TFbOSC400993j.C1.o33.fg
Query Match 100.0%; Score 708; Length 708;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 708; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 CTAGTTCTCTACCGGCGGCGGCCGGTTCAGATCCAGATCGAAAGCTGCCGCCTTGTTCGC 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 708 CTAGTTCTCTACCGGCGGCGGCCGGTTCAGATCCAGATCGAAAGCTGCCGCCTTGTTCGC 649
Qy 61 CGTAACCGCTGGAGGTGACGGCGCGAGATCAACCACCGACGAGGAGTCGGAGTCACTTTG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 648 CGTAACCGCTGGAGGTGACGGCGCGAGATCAACCACCGACGAGGAGTCGGAGTCACTTTG 589
Qy 121 TGCAACCGCCGCCACGGTGACCGGCGGTGCAAGCTTCATCATACGGTATCCAGCCTCAGC 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 588 TGCAACCGCCGCCACGGTGACCGGCGGTGCAAGCTTCATCATACGGTATCCAGCCTCAGC 529
Qy 181 TGCGGCAGCCGCTGCAGCCTGCTCATAGAAAAAGTAAGGATGCGTTGCTGGACGTGCAAC 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 528 TGCGGCAGCCGCTGCAGCCTGCTCATAGAAAAAGTAAGGATGCGTTGCTGGACGTGCAAC 469
Qy 241 GGGATATCCTCTGAAAGGAAAGCGAACGCCGGTGCCGGCGACTGCAGTCACAGCAGCCGC 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 468 GGGATATCCTCTGAAAGGAAAGCGAACGCCGGTGCCGGCGACTGCAGTCACAGCAGCCGC 409
Qy 301 GCGGTGGAACAAATCCAAGTCCAGAGTCGGCGGCAGAGGCATGGCCCGCATAGGCGTCTG 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 408 GCGGTGGAACAAATCCAAGTCCAGAGTCGGCGGCAGAGGCATGGCCCGCATAGGCGTCTG 349
Qy 361 AACCCCGCCGCCACCGGTGTCTACCGTGCTATTGCTGCTGGGGCTGCCGCCACAGCCGAC 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 348 AACCCCGCCGCCACCGGTGTCTACCGTGCTATTGCTGCTGGGGCTGCCGCCACAGCCGAC 289
Qy 421 CATCGACTGTGATGCAAACGGAAAGTTTGTTTTTGCCTTGGCACCCCGGAACTCTCGAGC 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 288 CATCGACTGTGATGCAAACGGAAAGTTTGTTTTTGCCTTGGCACCCCGGAACTCTCGAGC 229
Qy 481 GGCGGCGTCGTAGGCGCGGGCGGCCTCCTCTGCCGTGTCGTAGGTACCGAGCCACACCCG 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 228 GGCGGCGTCGTAGGCGCGGGCGGCCTCCTCTGCCGTGTCGTAGGTACCGAGCCACACCCG 169
Qy 541 GCTCTTCTTGGCAGGGTCACGGATCTCCGCTGCGTAACGCCCCCACGGGCGCTTGCGGAC 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 168 GCTCTTCTTGGCAGGGTCACGGATCTCCGCTGCGTAACGCCCCCACGGGCGCTTGCGGAC 109
Qy 601 GCCCCTGTAGTGAGGACCCCCGGCTCCGACACCTCCGCCGACGCCAAGACCAAGCCCGGT 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 108 GCCCCTGTAGTGAGGACCCCCGGCTCCGACACCTCCGCCGACGCCAAGACCAAGCCCGGT 49
Qy 661 GGGTGGCGCCACAGCAACCTTCTCCACCGTAGCTGCTCTGGGCGCCAT 708
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 48 GGGTGGCGCCACAGCAACCTTCTCCACCGTAGCTGCTCTGGGCGCCAT 1
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL T BOGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-2805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800 to 1830 Mtn.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham can be reached at 571-270-0708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSSELL T BOGGS/, PhD, JD Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights